- INTRODUCTION:
In the evolving jurisprudence of arbitration law, anti-arbitration injunctions pose a significant challenge to the statutory framework and objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by impeding the parties' autonomy and their agreed method of dispute resolution. An anti-arbitration injunction (“AAI”) is a judicial remedy whereby one party seeks to restrain the other from initiating or continuing arbitration proceedings pursuant to an arbitration agreement. The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgment “Engineering Projects (India) Limited (“EPIL”) v. MSA Global LLC (Oman)(“MSA”)”, granted such an injunction in favour of EPIL, restraining the continuation of the foreign seated arbitration proceedings. The decision explores the territorial jurisdiction of Indian civil courts in the context of international arbitration and lays down the circumstances under which such injunctions may be granted. This article, while discussing the nuances of the present judgment, seeks to address the intricacies around the enforceability of conflicting injunction orders passed by courts in different jurisdictions in foreign-seated arbitration, and the issues arising out of the same.
- FACTS OF THE CASE:
On 29.06.2015, EPIL entered into a contract with the Ministry of Defence, Oman, for a supply-and-build project relating to a border security system along the Oman-Yemen border. Subsequently, on 21.09.2015, EPIL, a government of India enterprise, subcontracted MSA for the design, supply, installation, integration, and commissioning of the system for a specific project known as Engineer-3. The agreement between EPIL and MSA included a dispute resolution clause providing that the courts in New Delhi, India, would have exclusive jurisdiction, and that any arbitration would be conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), with Singapore as the venue of arbitration. Disputes arose between the parties concerning delays in contractual performance, leading MSA to initiate arbitration proceedings in April 2023 against EPIL. An arbitral tribunal was constituted on 05.09.2023, comprising Mr. Jonathan A. Davis KC as the presiding arbitrator, with Mr. Andre Yeap SC (MSA’s nominee) and Mr. Justice Arjan K. Sikri (EPIL’s nominee) as co-arbitrators.
During the course of the arbitration proceedings, while preparing for evidentiary hearings, EPIL discovered that Mr. Andre Yeap SC, MSA’s nominated arbitrator, had previously participated in arbitral proceedings involving MSA’s Managing Director, Chairman, and Promoter, Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, which was not disclosed. Based on this prior association, EPIL filed a challenge before the ICC Court on 19.01.2025, alleging non-disclosure and raising concerns regarding Mr. Yeap’s independence, neutrality, and impartiality. Although the ICC Court acknowledged the non-disclosure as “regrettable,” it dismissed the challenge on merits, finding that the circumstances did not give rise to justifiable doubts about Mr. Yeap’s independence or impartiality. Subsequently, on 27.03.2025, EPIL approached the High Court of Singapore, seeking a judicial determination on the validity of Mr. Yeap’s continued involvement in the arbitral proceedings. Parallelly, on the insistence of MSA, the Arbitral Tribunal directed both parties to continue with the evidence proceedings. In the light of these developments, EPIL instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining MSA from initiating or continuing with the ICC arbitration proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal at Singapore. Subsequently, MSA filed a motion before the High Court of Singapore on 22.05.2025 (OA 519) for injunctive relief against EPIL from continuing with the suit filed in the Delhi High Court. The Singapore High Court, by the order dated 23.05.2025, granted an injunction restraining EPIL from prosecuting the present civil suit or initiating any other civil proceedings against MSA in any other jurisdiction. The Singapore High Court further observed that EPIL’s challenge to the arbitrator would be addressed on merits at a subsequent stage.
- DECISION SUMMARY:
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, civil courts possess presumptive jurisdiction to entertain civil suits unless such jurisdiction is expressly excluded by statute. The Court further clarified that this jurisdiction remains intact, particularly in cases where arbitral tribunals act in violation of fundamental judicial principles or the governing legal framework. While distinguishing the precedents cited by MSA, the Court noted that none of the judgments categorically barred civil courts from entertaining suits seeking AAIs. The Court, while relying on Union of India Vs Dabhol Power Company [(2004) SCC OnLine Del 1298], held that neither Section 5 nor Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ousts the jurisdiction of this Court from issuing an AAI if it finds that the arbitral proceedings against one of the parties in a foreign country are vexatious and oppressive, and call for interference. The Court, however, cautioned that the power to grant AAIs must be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional and rare cases. Referring to comparative jurisprudence from other jurisdictions, the Court confirmed that anti-arbitration relief may be warranted when arbitral conduct is oppressive or prejudicial to a party’s right to a fair process. Notably, the Court held that enforcing an arbitration agreement or award is against public interest where the constitution or conduct of the arbitral tribunal itself is seriously called into question. In such cases, the Court has a duty to intervene and prevent the continuation of an unjust process. Finally, while recognizing the Arbitration and Conciliation Act’s underlying principles of minimal judicial interference and party autonomy, the Court emphasized that these cannot completely negate the jurisdiction of civil courts in extraordinary circumstances.
Upon a thorough examination of the unique facts and circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit, having determined that the arbitration proceedings in question were vexatious and oppressive in nature. Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction, and consequently, stayed all proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and restrained the parties from participating therein, pending the final adjudication of the suit.
- ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER:
A significant issue arising from the present order concerns the apparent judicial conflict created by competing injunctions issued by the High Courts of Singapore and Delhi. Despite the Singapore High Court having passed an order on 23.05.2025 restraining EPIL from proceeding with the civil suit in India, the Delhi High Court, by its subsequent order dated 25.07.2025, proceeded to grant an anti-arbitration injunction in favour of EPIL, and stayed the arbitral proceedings pending adjudication of the suit. This decision highlights that while minimal judicial intervention and party autonomy remain cornerstones of the arbitration law, they do not immunize arbitration from judicial scrutiny in instances where procedural fairness is compromised, or the process is misused.
This scenario of cross-border injunctive relief gives rise to several unresolved legal questions, including which of the conflicting judicial orders ought to prevail; whether the arbitral tribunal can lawfully continue the proceedings in the light of the Delhi High Court’s order of stay; and how the challenge to the impartiality of the arbitrator will be addressed. The resolution of such issues remains to be seen as jurisprudence continues to evolve in this area.
CONCLUSION:
These conflicting injunctions reflect the increasing complexity of international arbitration and territorial jurisdiction. As foreign seated arbitral proceedings involve parties, tribunals, and subject matters spanning multiple jurisdictions, the increased likelihood of concurrent or contradictory judicial orders raises concerns about the cross-border impact and enforcement of the same. Such situations warrant fundamental questions regarding the principles of comity and the limits of judicial intervention in foreign-seated arbitrations.
The tension between preserving party autonomy in arbitration and the sovereign authority of national courts to safeguard procedural fairness and prevent injustice remains unresolved. In particular, issues such as the primacy of one court’s injunctive relief over another, the tribunal’s authority to proceed in the face of conflicting judicial directives, and the proper forum for determining challenges to arbitrator impartiality, all highlight the need for a more harmonized international legal framework.
Until such harmonization is achieved either through legislative reform or evolving jurisprudential consensus, these issues will continue to test the boundaries of international arbitration law. Courts and practitioners alike will be required to navigate these uncertainties on a case-by-case basis, with outcomes potentially shaped as much by principles of equity and international comity as by strict legal doctrine.
Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Authors:
Mr. Ravi Varma (Senior Partner)
Mr. Ayush Srivastava (Senior Associate)
Ms. Shamaila Khan (Associate)